[WBEL-devel] Heads up on RHEL Update2 Beta

William Hooper whooperhsd2@earthlink.net
Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:26:38 -0400 (EDT)

Joe Brouhard said:
>> The idea of keeping two 3.x ISO sets plus the 3.0
>> ISO set makes sense to me.
> Going back over my post, I think this is what I recommended, tho Hooper's
> post hit the list before mine...

You know, the more I ponder this, I might change my mind....

In theory, the day you have a release (let's say update2), any machine
that has been kept updated will be the same as a machine installed from
the new ISOs.  Furthering this thought, if you have problems with update2,
you will have the same problem with the updates (excluding installer

Keeping the 3.0 images are good from just a historical standpoint.  Images
beyond that should probably overlap for a defined period (to verify that
the new installs work), but after that can probably be removed leaving 3.0
and 3.newest.

I'm still wavering on the idea of a re-spin for updates that don't provide
more install-time hardware support.  For people buying CDs maybe working
on an "updates" CD that has the yum headers, etc. on it would make sense? 
Yum supports the an option to specify a alternate config file.  That could
probably be used to just do a "yum update" from the CD.  A lot less work
than re-spinning the whole distro, and the narrowband users still can
benefit from not having to download a bunch of updates post install.

William Hooper